"We do what's best for the team."

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Iceman4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Manning has a better passer rating that Brady.  Manning has more 4th Q comebacks, more game winning drives, more mvps, more 1st team all-pro designations, etc.  Wins in football require help from all facets of the game, a QB cannot do it all.  Brady has far and away benefitted from better kicking, better defense, and better return game performance from his mates than Manning

     

     

    UD..........all those stats you rambled off show 1 ring..........and questionable at that.

    A Champion overcomes and adapts.....being clutch...Manning lacks that. That is why Brady will always have more SB appearances and more rings.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah - Brady's a much better kicker. 

    [/QUOTE]


    He also has a 9/2 TD/INT ratio in the SB to Manning's 2/2.

    [/QUOTE]


    And yet Manning owns a better postseason passer rating.  go figure. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not hard to figure, troll. Manning has feasted in the wildcard round against the weakest teams. Actually, the wildcard round is the only postseason level he even enjoys a 2-1 TD-INT ratio. Brady has a 2-1 ratio or better in 3 of the four levels.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a hogwash take.  Since 2000, teams that played in the wild card round have made the superbowl 9 of 13 years. 

    • 3 of those years a WC round team won the SB - 06, 11, 12 (in 11 and 12, the SB winning team had the worst record of all playoff teams in it's conference). 
    • In 08, the worst record of all playoff teams in the NFC went to the SB, but lost.  
    • In 4 other years, actual wild card teams not only went to the superbowl, they won the superbowl. 

    So the idea that wildcard round teams are somehow weaker doesn't really hold alot of weight.  Try again, Babe. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More dishonesty from a born liar.

    Only a molester loving troll could try and make the case that wildcard teams are generally as strong as the higher seeded teams.

    There were a LOT more wildcard teams over those years than the 9 you tout liar. There have been 28 wildcard teams over that time.

    And everybody knows the Giants and Ravens teams that were wildcards who won the SB had a bunch of excellent players come back from injury late in the season to greatly bolster the team.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re:

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who is determining what is best for the team? 

    There have been many instances that show the team is making decisions that aren't what is best for the team.  One example would be the story that came out after the draft that BB did not listen to the scouts at draft time.  So apparently the scouts are not in on the "what's best for the team" meetings.

    The Pats need a legit GM.  Having the same GM and Head Coach is a conflict of interest.

    [/QUOTE]

    bring me back Pioli please

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from getdrunkstupit. Show getdrunkstupit's posts

    Re:

    Danny gone for Leon.  thats whats best for this team....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Iceman4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Manning has a better passer rating that Brady.  Manning has more 4th Q comebacks, more game winning drives, more mvps, more 1st team all-pro designations, etc.  Wins in football require help from all facets of the game, a QB cannot do it all.  Brady has far and away benefitted from better kicking, better defense, and better return game performance from his mates than Manning

     

     

    UD..........all those stats you rambled off show 1 ring..........and questionable at that.

    A Champion overcomes and adapts.....being clutch...Manning lacks that. That is why Brady will always have more SB appearances and more rings.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah - Brady's a much better kicker. 

    [/QUOTE]


    He also has a 9/2 TD/INT ratio in the SB to Manning's 2/2.

    [/QUOTE]


    And yet Manning owns a better postseason passer rating.  go figure. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not hard to figure, troll. Manning has feasted in the wildcard round against the weakest teams. Actually, the wildcard round is the only postseason level he even enjoys a 2-1 TD-INT ratio. Brady has a 2-1 ratio or better in 3 of the four levels.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a hogwash take.  Since 2000, teams that played in the wild card round have made the superbowl 9 of 13 years. 

    • 3 of those years a WC round team won the SB - 06, 11, 12 (in 11 and 12, the SB winning team had the worst record of all playoff teams in it's conference). 
    • In 08, the worst record of all playoff teams in the NFC went to the SB, but lost.  
    • In 4 other years, actual wild card teams not only went to the superbowl, they won the superbowl. 

    So the idea that wildcard round teams are somehow weaker doesn't really hold alot of weight.  Try again, Babe. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More dishonesty from a born liar.

    Only a molester loving troll could try and make the case that wildcard teams are generally as strong as the higher seeded teams.

    There were a LOT more wildcard teams over those years than the 9 you tout liar. There have been 28 wildcard teams over that time.

    And everybody knows the Giants and Ravens teams that were wildcards who won the SB had a bunch of excellent players come back from injury late in the season to greatly bolster the team.

    [/QUOTE]
    Babe, I am concerned for your mental health.  You only post from an angry perspective regardless of whether its me or anyone else, and now you don't seem to understand the things you say. 

    This is a perfect example.  I wasn't dishonest in my last post, but I don't think you actually believe that.  So, here's my therapy for you.  While its entirely possible that I made a mistake in the facts that I presented, I don't think I did.  Why don't you you review and research my facts.  It will provide some mental gymnastics to strengthen your brain function (like Lumosity.com), and then report back to the board your results rather than your typical angry outbursts without anything to back you up.  Good Luck. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:



    Not hard to figure, troll. Manning has feasted in the wildcard round against the weakest teams. Actually, the wildcard round is the only postseason level he even enjoys a 2-1 TD-INT ratio. Brady has a 2-1 ratio or better in 3 of the four levels.



    That is a hogwash take.  Since 2000, teams that played in the wild card round have made the superbowl 9 of 13 years. 

    • 3 of those years a WC round team won the SB - 06, 11, 12 (in 11 and 12, the SB winning team had the worst record of all playoff teams in it's conference). 
    • In 08, the worst record of all playoff teams in the NFC went to the SB, but lost.  
    • In 4 other years, actual wild card teams not only went to the superbowl, they won the superbowl. 

    So the idea that wildcard round teams are somehow weaker doesn't really hold alot of weight.  Try again, Babe. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More dishonesty from a born liar.

    Only a molester loving troll could try and make the case that wildcard teams are generally as strong as the higher seeded teams.

    There were a LOT more wildcard teams over those years than the 9 you tout liar. There have been 28 wildcard teams over that time.

    And everybody knows the Giants and Ravens teams that were wildcards who won the SB had a bunch of excellent players come back from injury late in the season to greatly bolster the team.

    [/QUOTE]
    Babe, I am concerned for your mental health.  You only post from an angry perspective regardless of whether its me or anyone else, and now you don't seem to understand the things you say. 

    This is a perfect example.  I wasn't dishonest in my last post, but I don't think you actually believe that.  So, here's my therapy for you.  While its entirely possible that I made a mistake in the facts that I presented, I don't think I did.  Why don't you you review and research my facts.  It will provide some mental gymnastics to strengthen your brain function (like Lumosity.com), and then report back to the board your results rather than your typical angry outbursts without anything to back you up.  Good Luck. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't flatter yourself by assuming you could cause me to be angry. You don't matter nearly enough for that. I simply expose liars like you. It's just what I do. It has nothing to do with anger.

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    So, of the 7 wildcard games Fetus Head played in, not a single one approached the quality of the wildcard teams you tried to deviously provide as examples of wildcard quality.

    Sick of being exposed as the dishonest troll you are yet?

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    And your statement doesn't even support or follow your previous statement.  How is Manning feasting on weaker teams that beat the colts?  What sense does that make?  Further your statement doesn't discount ANY of the facts I presented.  You are just changing the story (really poorly, I might add) in a failed attempt to maintain credibilty. 

    fail fail fail - fail fail fail - babe is a big fat fail (sing it to jingle bells - tis the season). 

    LOL.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll. I was working from 2000 up in years and simply stopped too soon. It has little bearing on my showing that the wildcard teams Fetus Head has played were not of the caliber you were showcasing to bolster your phony agenda.

    So, 3 of the 4 wildcard games the molester lost were to teams that did nothing further. That changes little, liar.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

    And your statement doesn't even support or follow your previous statement.  How is Manning feasting on weaker teams that beat the colts?  What sense does that make? 

    [/QUOTE]

    He had his highest by far passer rating against wildcard teams. YOU claimed wildcard teams were of high caliber.

    I pointed out that of the 7 teams he actually played 6 did not advance far at all. Three lost the wildcard game and of the 4 losses three lost the next game.

    (I inadvertently missed the 7th; that doesn't "skew the evidence" since my point remains strongly intact based on the 6-1 ratio that remains).

    More dishonesty and misdirection from the lying troll. I simply missed one game in my pertinent example. You used an example that skewed things your way that was not applicable to the point. That's what dishonest people do. Yes, SOME wildcard teams did advance significantly; just not any that he played (except one got more than a game further, but none got to the SB which is what you were touting as the benchmark for wildcard teams being so good).

    Nothing says he didn't pile up some stats even though his team lost to a wildcard. In fact, in only one of his 4 wildcard losses did he have a poor game, and that wasn't against the team that advanced the furthest.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

    And your statement doesn't even support or follow your previous statement.  How is Manning feasting on weaker teams that beat the colts?  What sense does that make? 



    He had his highest by far passer rating against wildcard teams. YOU claimed wildcard teams were of high caliber.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Wait - what? 

    Didn't you say "Manning has feasted in the wildcard round on weaker teams"?  Didn't you then provide teams he played in that round that beat the colts (while accidentally on purpose leaving out the "weaker" Ravens that also beat the pats)? 

    If your claims are right that Manning feasted on these teams and yet those teams still beat the colts, doesn't that support my claim that Manning had a significantly weaker supporting cast than Brady - particularly in major phases of the game like DEFENSE and SPECIAL TEAMS?  Doesn't that make his accomplishments more amazing? 

    Here's another foot in mouth emoji for you babe.  Foot in Mouth

    PS - I've got some news for you about wildcard round teams - Since 2006 everyone of the pats playoff losses came against teams that played in the WC round. But hey teams that play in that round are weaker - Right Babe?? Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth  (three feet in your mouth for that one, Babe). 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

    [/QUOTE]

    See Doggg the COMPARISON was between Brady and Manning as great QB"S. No doubt one of them is the greatest accumulator of regualr season stats right alongside Dan Marino.  If you want to characterize them not winning as failures then we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is the all time biggest failure (8 one and outs, 11 playoff loses) in Playoff history and Tom Brady is one of the greatest winners in playoff history. So I am fine you the term failure to compare and contrast the 2 QB's.

    BTW I  think Rusty would actually take your side in this arguemnet but I understand your need to try and defelct. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

    [/QUOTE]

    See Doggg the COMPARISON was between Brady and Manning as great QB"S. No doubt one of them is the greatest accumulator of regualr season stats right alongside Dan Marino.  If you want to characterize them not winning as failures then we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is the all time biggest failure (8 one and outs, 11 playoff loses) in Playoff history and Tom Brady is one of the greatest winners in playoff history. So I am fine you the term failure to compare and contrast the 2 QB's.

    BTW I  think Rusty would actually take your side in this arguemnet but I understand your need to try and defelct. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I think you missed my point (probably intentionally).  Not only do I not think Manning is a failure - I don't see someone who accumulates great stats but lacking team wins in the greatest of all team sports as a failure.  You may.  But I understand you taking that position, because its the only position you can take to try to make Brady appear to be better than Manning.   

    But I do always wonder what guys like Bruschi and Seymour and Harrison and Law and Vinatieri, etc.  think about pats fans regarding such a subject.   

    If the QB is going to get all of the criticism for losses then they have to get all the praise for wins, which assumes that the contributions by others like those I mentioned above are rendered meaniningless.  Is that the way you see it Jri?  Did those other patriots I mentioned above, and the many unmentioned, not have any contribution to the success and failure of the patriots? 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

    [/QUOTE]

    See Doggg the COMPARISON was between Brady and Manning as great QB"S. No doubt one of them is the greatest accumulator of regualr season stats right alongside Dan Marino.  If you want to characterize them not winning as failures then we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is the all time biggest failure (8 one and outs, 11 playoff loses) in Playoff history and Tom Brady is one of the greatest winners in playoff history. So I am fine you the term failure to compare and contrast the 2 QB's.

    BTW I  think Rusty would actually take your side in this arguemnet but I understand your need to try and defelct. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I think you missed my point (probably intentionally).  Not only do I not think Manning is a failure - I don't see someone who accumulates great stats but lacking team wins in the greatest of all team sports as a failure.  You may.  But I understand you taking that position, because its the only position you can take to try to make Brady appear to be better than Manning.   

    But I do always wonder what guys like Bruschi and Seymour and Harrison and Law and Vinatieri, etc.  think about pats fans regarding such a subject.   

    If the QB is going to get all of the criticism for losses then they have to get all the praise for wins, which assumes that the contributions by others like those I mentioned above are rendered meaniningless.  Is that the way you see it Jri?  Did those other patriots I mentioned above, and the many unmentioned, not have any contribution to the success and failure of the patriots? 

    [/QUOTE]

    So then we agree your team can have the QB that your owner even characterized as a guy not getting it done as much as he should have and I am perfectly happy to have Tom Brady QB the team that I root for. I am very happy with the reslts TB has produced for the Pats. If you are happy with the results PM produced to date then good for you. I'll take the winner... thank you!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Troll sent scurrying with tail between legs like the dishonest molester worshiping liar he is. My point remains completely valid despite your desperate clinging to a paltry omission and doesn't lessen your feeble point being bludgeoned. LMAO@U

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    PS - I've got some news for you about wildcard round teams - Since 2006 everyone of the pats playoff losses came against teams that played in the WC round. But hey teams that play in that round are weaker - Right Babe?? Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth  (three feet in your mouth for that one, Babe). 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with the deeply rooted dishonesty from the troll. The thing is, we aren't talking about WC teams the Pats played. We're talking about WC teams the Colts played. And 6 of the 7 WC teams Fetus Head played either lost to them, or lost the next game.

    So your phoney spin about WC teams winning or playing in the SB doesn't apply, since NO WC TEAM THE COLTS EVER PLAYED DID THAT!

    Your dishonesty is so easy to see through, Manning troll.

    Now get back to molesting that female-trainer blowup doll of yours.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    So then we agree your team can have the QB that your owner even characterized as a guy not getting it done as much as he should have

    [/QUOTE]

    Ouch! The lying troll is going to be soaking his butt in epsom salts for hours after that one.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

    [/QUOTE]

    See Doggg the COMPARISON was between Brady and Manning as great QB"S. No doubt one of them is the greatest accumulator of regualr season stats right alongside Dan Marino.  If you want to characterize them not winning as failures then we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is the all time biggest failure (8 one and outs, 11 playoff loses) in Playoff history and Tom Brady is one of the greatest winners in playoff history. So I am fine you the term failure to compare and contrast the 2 QB's.

    BTW I  think Rusty would actually take your side in this arguemnet but I understand your need to try and defelct. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I think you missed my point (probably intentionally).  Not only do I not think Manning is a failure - I don't see someone who accumulates great stats but lacking team wins in the greatest of all team sports as a failure.  You may.  But I understand you taking that position, because its the only position you can take to try to make Brady appear to be better than Manning.   

    But I do always wonder what guys like Bruschi and Seymour and Harrison and Law and Vinatieri, etc.  think about pats fans regarding such a subject.   

    If the QB is going to get all of the criticism for losses then they have to get all the praise for wins, which assumes that the contributions by others like those I mentioned above are rendered meaniningless.  Is that the way you see it Jri?  Did those other patriots I mentioned above, and the many unmentioned, not have any contribution to the success and failure of the patriots? 

    [/QUOTE]

    So then we agree your team can have the QB that your owner even characterized as a guy not getting it done as much as he should have and I am perfectly happy to have Tom Brady QB the team that I root for. I am very happy with the reslts TB has produced for the Pats. If you are happy with the results PM produced to date then good for you. I'll take the winner... thank you!

    [/QUOTE]

    Jri - talk about deflection.  I asked questions and you whistle right by them with a conclusion that once again refutes none of my points.  If you are finished, which it appears you are, I'll take your conclusion as an acceptance of my position.  What other conclusion could I draw?  Thanks.  Good luck to your pats this week. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    PS - I've got some news for you about wildcard round teams - Since 2006 everyone of the pats playoff losses came against teams that played in the WC round. But hey teams that play in that round are weaker - Right Babe?? Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth  (three feet in your mouth for that one, Babe). 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with the deeply rooted dishonesty from the troll. The thing is, we aren't talking about WC teams the Pats played. We're talking about WC teams the Colts played. And 6 of the 7 WC teams Fetus Head played either lost to them, or lost the next game.

    So your phoney spin about WC teams winning or playing in the SB doesn't apply, since NO WC TEAM THE COLTS EVER PLAYED DID THAT!

    Your dishonesty is so easy to see through, Manning troll.

    Now get back to molesting that female-trainer blowup doll of yours.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh no sir.  You depicted wild card round teams as weaker.  I merely pointed out that those "weaker" teams have beaten the past every year since 2006.  Babe - Do you like apples?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    PS - I've got some news for you about wildcard round teams - Since 2006 everyone of the pats playoff losses came against teams that played in the WC round. But hey teams that play in that round are weaker - Right Babe?? Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth  (three feet in your mouth for that one, Babe). 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again with the deeply rooted dishonesty from the troll. The thing is, we aren't talking about WC teams the Pats played. We're talking about WC teams the Colts played. And 6 of the 7 WC teams Fetus Head played either lost to them, or lost the next game.

    So your phoney spin about WC teams winning or playing in the SB doesn't apply, since NO WC TEAM THE COLTS EVER PLAYED DID THAT!

    Your dishonesty is so easy to see through, Manning troll.

    Now get back to molesting that female-trainer blowup doll of yours.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh no sir.  You depicted wild card round teams as weaker.  I merely pointed out that those "weaker" teams have beaten the past every year since 2006.  Babe - Do you like apples?

    [/QUOTE]


    I have to hand it to them. Beating the past is an amazing feat.

    But of course you aren't even aware of your own dishonesty, it is so deeply ingrained.

    The point was about the teams Manning has achieved his greatest passer rating against. Those are WC teams. And 6 of the 7 WC teams he has played either lost the next game or lost to the Colts and proved they were not very formidable teams.

    Because some WC teams have reached the SB (not WC teams Manning has played) you try to deflect and desperately cling to other WC teams achievements to squirm away from the facts.

    DEFLECTION: that's your dishonest life-preserver here. But the board doesn't buy your dishonesty. Is there a single person here who will stick up for this lying troll?

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe - LOL.  Here's an emoji for you Foot in Mouth.  That would be foot in mouth.

    Here's what you said:

    When persons present a deviously incomplete set of facts to state a case because presenting those particular facts alone skews the evidence to support their agenda, then they are being dishonest.

    Let's look at the teams Gomer has lost to in the wildcard round and see what quality they were.

    2000 - Dolphins. Lost the next game.

    2002 - Jets. Lost the next game.

    2008 - Chargers. Lost the next game.

     

    You conveniently left out 2010 where the colts lost to the Jets who went on to beat "gasp", the Pats.  LOL.  Foot in MouthFoot in MouthFoot in Mouth.  Too bad there's not a pinnochio emoji Babe you'd get one of those.  Probably a good thing though because yours would be so long it would run off the page. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely inadvertent omission troll.

    [/QUOTE]
    More comedic relief from the babe above.  Can't wait for you to say "don't forget to tip you waitresses". 

    [/QUOTE]

    The only comic relief is your outrageously, diabolic, shameful excuse making for manning's one and outs, his 9-11 playoff record and your reprehensible defense (you know the old college prank defense) of his sexual assault.

    My favorite excuse you made for him was the opposings teams punter was one of  the reasons he went one and out. Pretty lame...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's right you are one of the guys that thinks Brady plays defense and kicks FG's too.  I remember the game the punter had, and frankly I don't care what you think.  When you can pin a team at the 10 yd line or deeper 6 times (is that right) that's amazing.  BTW - good job coming to Babe's rescue.  He needed some help. Cue the William Tell Overature.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't care what I think... nor would I expect you to care... The rest of the posters here will judge you on your defense (the opposing punter, weather etc.) of Manning failures in the playoffs and your defense of his so called prank he pulled in college.

    BTW Babe does not need my help in slapping you around... I would say he does perfectly fine in that area.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh boy - I can't wait for that "objective" judgment. Did I mention weather?  I thought you guys were always the one bringing up weather.  Maybe I did - was it about Manning winning the worst weather superbowl in history?

    Oops there you go again - laying all of the team's failures at Manning's feet.  Are you like Rusty Jri where you give everyone else on the pats a pass for team failures and lay it all on Brady? 

    Oh - babe needs help - serious help - you just may be incapable of providing it.  Surprised

    [/QUOTE]

    See Doggg the COMPARISON was between Brady and Manning as great QB"S. No doubt one of them is the greatest accumulator of regualr season stats right alongside Dan Marino.  If you want to characterize them not winning as failures then we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peyton Manning is the all time biggest failure (8 one and outs, 11 playoff loses) in Playoff history and Tom Brady is one of the greatest winners in playoff history. So I am fine you the term failure to compare and contrast the 2 QB's.

    BTW I  think Rusty would actually take your side in this arguemnet but I understand your need to try and defelct. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh I think you missed my point (probably intentionally).  Not only do I not think Manning is a failure - I don't see someone who accumulates great stats but lacking team wins in the greatest of all team sports as a failure.  You may.  But I understand you taking that position, because its the only position you can take to try to make Brady appear to be better than Manning.   

    But I do always wonder what guys like Bruschi and Seymour and Harrison and Law and Vinatieri, etc.  think about pats fans regarding such a subject.   

    If the QB is going to get all of the criticism for losses then they have to get all the praise for wins, which assumes that the contributions by others like those I mentioned above are rendered meaniningless.  Is that the way you see it Jri?  Did those other patriots I mentioned above, and the many unmentioned, not have any contribution to the success and failure of the patriots? 

    [/QUOTE]

    So then we agree your team can have the QB that your owner even characterized as a guy not getting it done as much as he should have and I am perfectly happy to have Tom Brady QB the team that I root for. I am very happy with the reslts TB has produced for the Pats. If you are happy with the results PM produced to date then good for you. I'll take the winner... thank you!

    [/QUOTE]

    Jri - talk about deflection.  I asked questions and you whistle right by them with a conclusion that once again refutes none of my points.  If you are finished, which it appears you are, I'll take your conclusion as an acceptance of my position.  What other conclusion could I draw?  Thanks.  Good luck to your pats this week. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are correct i am done and I'll take the guy who wins over the guy who accumulates stats in the regular season. I would wish your Colts good luck but based on the vast majority of your posts you seem more like a manning fan than a Colts fan.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re:

    Jri - unfortunately my colts are not yet a very good team.  They are a decent and fortunate team that I have enjoyed watching and rooting for all year.  That said, like last year, they are not quite ready for prime time although they will be in the playoffs.  So, you would be wrong about my love for Manning over the colts, but what am I to do?  I can't yet make an argument for Andrew Luck vs. Tom Brady - some day likely - but not quite yet. 

    Frankly, the only reason this discussion got to this point is because I so frequently see people excusing Brady for things for which they never would excuse another teams QB, AND on the flip side AND in defense of Brady - there are others here who do not properly give Brady the credit he is obviously due.  In that vein - Brady is much like Peyton Manning. 

    If only you could sit in my chair and observe the patriot fan banter from this objective seat you would be shocked to see how the paths of Manning and Brady (at least over the past 5-7 years) have been so similar. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share